Wireless communication is growing to cover large areas, but data transfer speed in conventional wireless communication systems is still much slower than wire based communication systems. Canadian patents CA 2426769 and CA 2511368, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,218 to Boesjes describe a single unit to handle all routing computations, which can handle the computation workload when the wireless network is deployed over a small area. An example of Boesjes configuration is connecting several end users to the Internet backbone. Disadvantageously, when deployed over a larger area having a larger number of wireless units, the Boesjes single computational unit approach becomes slow because the number of routing computations becomes too voluminous for a single wireless unit to handle alone.
Disadvantageously, Boesjes does not describe any storing and reuse of routing information; therefore, redundant calculations tie up limited resources and slow the network down. Further, according to another centralized route-computing processing model described in the prior art, there is another major problem—in that by making one unit process all of the route-computing process it remains possible to re-route the data in case of a malfunction of some of the units along the data travel path, but disadvantageously when the specific unit that performs route-computing stops functioning, the entire network will fail.
Canadian patents CA 2426769 and CA 2511368, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,218 issued to Boesjes disclose a wireless communication network that could be faster than a dial up network, however, disadvantageously, that infrastructure has been developed with little or no attention to security, which is frequently compromised in many different ways.
Among the known prior art is the “mesh” network. Whereas the Internet is mostly a wire-based, co-operative electronic communication infrastructure, mesh is typically a wireless co-operative communication infrastructure between a massive amount of individual wireless transceivers (i.e. a wireless mesh) that have Ethernet type capabilities. This type of infrastructure can be decentralized (with no central server) or centrally managed (with a central server), both are relatively inexpensive, and very reliable and resilient, as each node need only transmit as far as the next node. Nodes act as repeaters to transmit data from nearby nodes to peers that are too far away to reach, resulting in a network that can span large distances, especially over rough or difficult terrain. Mesh networks are also extremely reliable, as each node is connected to several other nodes. If one node drops out of the network, due to hardware failure or any other reason, its neighbours simply find another route. Extra capacity can be installed by simply adding more nodes. Mesh networks may involve either fixed or mobile devices. The principle is similar to the way packets travel around the wired Internet—data will hop from one device to another until it reaches a given destination. Dynamic routing capabilities included in each device allow this to happen. In a typical implementation of mesh each device communicates its routing information to every device it connects with, “almost in real time”. Each device then determines what to do with the data it receives—either pass it on to the next device or keep it. The routing algorithm used should attempt to ensure that the data takes the most appropriate (fastest) route to its destination. In a traditional wireless network where laptops connect to a single access point, each laptop typically shares a fixed pool of bandwidth. With mesh technology and adaptive radio, devices in a mesh network connect with other devices that are in a set range. The advantage is that, like a natural load balancing system, the more devices the more bandwidth becomes available, provided that the number of hops in the average communications path is kept low.
Among the prior art discovered is U.S. Pat. No. 5,115,433, filed in 1990, issued in 1992 to Baran et al. who teach a routing method suitable for a legacy network based on the use of absolute geographical coordinates (“AGC”) expressly chosen to avoid the use of a routing directory or table that they advise constitutes excess overhead. In the 15 years between the filings in 1990 and 2005, computer processing capacity and memory density have increased while hardware costs have continued to drop, such that the problem they sought to avoid is now less of an issue. In the interim since Baran's solution was invented, node density and reliability have also increased. The inherently planar Cartesian embodiment taught by Baran is disadvantageously suited to a set of nodes situated in relatively low density conditions the location of which is accurately known and relatively static. The Baran design does not contemplate mobile nodes and due to its need for accuracy of node location would not be suitable for dealing with mobile nodes. Although Baran's system allows for growth by adding new nodes overtime, it is a relatively static model that disadvantageously is not suited to random transient conditions arising, such as, for example, when users shut down their wireless devices for varying periods of time. The very characteristic, not relying on a routing directory or table, that Baran cites as an advantage for the solution that it teaches, is in fact a serious disadvantage for operating a wireless network in various different conditions. Below a certain resolution, that depends on the particular hardware (not specified by Baran) used to implement that solution, the use of absolute coordinates fails to distinguish between 2 nodes at substantially the same location, in which conditions the use of a routing table (even a routing table that contains information respecting all of the nodes of a given network) is helpful.
Baran does not define “network director”, so it is not clear how this relates to a routing table, however the usage (e.g., the last sentence of the abstract) suggests that a network director is a routing table. As a network grows in device membership, the routing table becomes exponentially larger, which is a big problem for most networks. Baran solved this problem by assigning absolute geographical coordinates to each node and completely eliminating the routing table.